Monthly Archives: April 2011

While I never confused Ron Paul for a White Nationalist or a race realist I thought he was a protector from the invasion. Is there ANYONE in DC who has our back?

Congressman Ron Paul’s apparent entry into the presidential race will certainly be welcomed by many on the anti-Establishment “Alternative Right”. Paul’s heterodox views on foreign policy and the Federal Reserve, along with his consistent opposition to government spending, had earned him an army of loyal supporters since before his long-shot presidential campaign in 2008.

VDARE.com wrote extensively about Ron Paul’s mixed but interesting immigration record during the 2008 campaign, including an interview he did with Peter Brimelow. Back then we noted that he was generally good on the issues of amnesty, sovereignty, welfare for illegal aliens, and above all birthright citizenship (of which very few professional politicians had then heard). He was bad on E-Verify and Real ID. And his positions on legal immigration were disturbingly vague.

But as the 2008 campaign wore on, it became clear that Paul had no idea how to use the immigration issue, with the result that the chameleon Mike Huckabee and the amnestiac John McCain (!!) regularly outpolled him among self-reported immigration patriots—greatly to the disgrace of his campaign managers.

Since the presidential primaries, Paul has been virtually silent. His post-campaign book, The Revolution, did not mention immigration at all.

Paul’s congressional website’s platform for 2010 was identical to that for 2008. He called for increased border security, rejection of amnesty, an end to birthright citizenship, no welfare for illegals, and a vague “true reform” of legal immigration.

On the legislative front, Paul has been Missing In Action. He voted against the DREAM Act, but has not co-sponsored any significant piece of immigration legislation.

Now, at last, Paul has finally given a comprehensive discussion of his views on immigration—in his latest book Liberty Defined, where he lists his positions on fifty different issues.

But what he—or the left-libertarian faction that seems to have his ear/ byline after the strange death of Rothbardian paleolibertarianism—actually says about the issue of immigration is a profound, and in fact tragic, disappointment.

Ominously, Paul begins by trying to triangulate between the Open Borders Left and a non-existent restrictionist straw man.

Thus his immigration chapter opens: “There seem to be two extreme positions on immigration: completely closed borders and totally open borders.”

Bunk! No patriotic immigration reformer want a “closed border.” We want a secure border—where we control who comes in and does not. No-one wants to get rid of tourists, cross-border commerce, or even all legal immigration. We just want to keep out drugs, illegal aliens, and terrorists out, while limiting and selecting the inflow of legal immigrants.

Paul’s triangulation continues:

“One side says use the US Army, round them up ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty… The first choice—sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home—isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t happen…if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who have never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights.”

Baloney! Far from offering a “third way” between the Left and Right, Paul sounds exactly like both Barack Obama and the GOP establishment:

Newt Gingrich told a group of Hispanic Republicans last December: “We are not going to deport 11 million people. There has to be some zone between deportation and amnesty.” [Newt Gingrich wants immigration overhaul, by Kendra Marr, Politico, December 2, 2010]

Obama told an audience at American University last July:

“If the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job”

[Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Whitehouse.gov, July 1, 2010]

To his discredit, Ron Paul echoed Obama all the way down to the clichés about splitting up families and children without Mexican roots.

But at least Obama and Gingrich didn’t pretend that deporting illegal immigrants would require violating the Posse Comitatus Act.

Paul, Gingrich, and Obama set up a false dichotomy. Most patriotic immigration reformers, certainly none in Congress, do not advocate for mass deportations—much less employing the army in the task. They simply argue that stepping up interior enforcement and sanctions against employers will encourage illegal aliens will go home on their home—“attrition through enforcement”.

Additionally, it now turns out that Paul now opposes all employer sanction laws. He writes:

“Don’t punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, with counterfeit identification strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the constitution. Determining who is legal or not is police and court function, not a responsibility of private business.”

Of course, E-Verify would get rid of the problem of employers having to deal with counterfeit identification. But Paul was one of just two Congressmen to vote against reauthorizing E-Verify. And how is asking employers to follow a very simple regulation “compulsory servitude?”

Paul doesn’t mind illegal aliens working anyway—he argues “Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they ‘take’ are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered.”

Of course, a believer in free markets should understand that this is merely another way of saying American labor has been underbid. The real question: why should a Paul Administration ally with the owners of capital against labor, by increasing its supply? Particularly when immigrant labor is cross-subsidized by the taxpayer-funded welfare state—a complication that Paul, like most modal libertarians, rarely address.)

Nor, now, does Paul support interior enforcement. He comes out against SB 1070. He asserts:

“Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a ‘threat,’ without charges ever being made.”

Paul’s line about assassinating American citizens refers to the Obama administration’s decision to deem Al Quaeda Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki an enemy combatant, whom the CIA can lawfully kill. Ironically, Al-Awlaki is an “anchor baby”— born to Yemeni parents here on a student visa. He is currently working with al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Whatever your views on Obama’s terrorism policy, the concept of “reasonable suspicion “is not a “vague charge” made up by Kris Kobach and Russell Pearce in SB 1070. Police power to question individuals where they believe there is “reasonable suspicion” was established in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio case, and local police had been using this authority in criminal investigations long before then. SB 1070 simply applied this pre-existing standard, which was used by police in other crimes and federal immigration authorities, to local immigration enforcement.

Along with Paul’s imaginary calls for the US Army to round up illegal aliens, this analogy can only be seen as an intentional attempt to conflate basic interior enforcement with the most extreme hypothetical “big brother” violations of civil liberties.

So if we aren’t going to have deportations, interior enforcement, employer sanctions, or amnesty, what’s Paul’s plan? He writes:

“Immigrants who can’t be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship. Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be condemned by the welfare left as too harsh and condemned by the confused right as being too generous. It will be said that it will create a class of second-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some illegal immigrants who come here illegal a benefit status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits—as much better option than deportation.”

Paul is right about one thing: after reading this, I am a member of the “confused right”. How does this proposal not create “second-class citizens”? And how is it better to have a mass of semi-legal immigrants in this country than not to have them here at all?

Worst of all, Paul calls for increasing legal immigration from its present record levels. He writes: “With free markets and private property, a need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Make it legal and easy with a generous visitor work program.”

And Paul attacks the motives of immigration patriots. Thus he claims that immigrants

“have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.”

This is just immigration enthusiast anti-American myth-making. The reality: despite the fact that illegal immigrants and newly arrived legal immigrants are ostensibly barred from most means tested welfare, the Center for Immigration Studies reports that 57% of immigrant households with children are on welfare—compared to just 39% of native-born households (and 30% for native-born whites).

And, disgracefully, Paul insinuates that there “racist” motives behind immigration restriction. He writes: “It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant.”

(Links added.) This, again, is a completely hypothetical assertion. Some 77% of illegal immigrants come from Latin America—and less than 5 % of illegal and 9% of legal immigrants come from Europe.

There are a few good things in Paul’s book. While he opposes Arizona’s law, he does assert the rights of states to enact their own immigration bills. He calls for ending all aid to illegal aliens, including public education. (Great—but how would it work, exactly?) He reiterates—albeit in just one sentence—his opposition to birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, Liberty Defines cleasrly shows a shift towards open borders libertarianism by Paul. This is a truly saddening development.

Why the shift? Paul is very principled man. He does not usually shift his core beliefs based on political expediency.

But he has shown a willingness to wiggle on issues such as race and immigration, where he does not seem to have very strong beliefs one way or the other.

Note that Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has also thrown his hat into the GOP presidential nomination race—and he is promoting a more left-wing libertarian view on both gay marriage and immigration.

Paul has a cult following among libertarian college students around his group Young Americans for Liberty. The majority of them dogmatically support open borders, as do most of the Beltway Libertarian Establishment.

Thus Reason Magazine’s Shikha Dalmia explains her support of Johnson over Paul:

“Like Paul, he is anti-war, anti-big government and pro-civil liberties. But unlike Paul, he is pro-choice (except for late-term abortions), pro-immigration, pro-trade and untainted by bizarre conspiracy theories that NAFTA is a prelude to the dissolution of North American borders.” [Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Gary Johnson for President, April 28, 2011]

It is possible that Paul—or his handlers— worry about these dedicated libertarians loonies defecting into the Johnson cam?

Paul’s shift on immigration could be a costly mistake. As he discovered in 2008, dedicated libertarian loony followers do not necessarily translate into popular votes. And the vast majority of Republicans support patriotic immigration reform.

Recent polls show that Republicans want an Arizona style immigration law in their state by over a 7-1 margin. And they oppose birthright citizenship by over a 5 to 1 margin.

Losing a few pot-smoking college students who might pass out campaign flyers between bong hits is not worth alienating these voters. Nor is the condescending tolerance of the MSM.

Napoleon’s police chief Joseph Fouché famously said of the duc d’Enghien’s judicial murder: “It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder”.

Ron Paul needs every vote he can get in his insurrectionary candidacy. In spurning immigration patriots, he has blundered.

The New Black Panther Party, the racist and radical black power group, has a big day ahead of it this coming Saturday. According to its website, it’s planning a massive 60-city “showdown.“ And the day of rage will include a protest of ”non-black” businesses.

The group says it’s establishing a home base at an office building in Harlem, an area it’s modeling after revolutionary ground zero in Egypt.

“Like in Tahir square in Egypt we will establish this historic location for our revolution and our demands,” the website explains. “Over 1,000 are expected in this historic outdoor political rally.”

The site goes on to explain why its rallying:

As in other revolutions, protests and uprisings going on around the earth, a showdown is looming for Saturday April 23rd as marchers with the ”National International Day of Action and Unity” are furious andfrustrated with New York officials blatant discrimination and denial of their constitutional and human right to rally and march. Marchers are marching and rallying in 60 cities around America and in London and Africa to demand justice for Black People and improvement in our conditions.

But “rally” might not be the best term for it. The group, rather, uses other words including “confrontation,“ and says the protesters will use ”whatever action is necessary to relieve oppressive conditions against Blacks in New York and around the planet.” And apparently the law doesn’t matter: it will hold the event “with or without a permit.”

In 2008, Tennessee had America’s fifth highest rate of black homicides. Nashville, with 42 black murder victims, had a rate higher than the state average and in 2009 surpassed Memphis to become the most violent city in the Volunteer State.

If you are black in Nashville, you are 5x more likely to be murdered than if you are White. Black homicides have risen while White homicides have declined for several years now.

Black community leaders are blaming a sense of “hopelessness” in the affected areas. “Those are the ones that are dangerous,” said Jerry Maynard, a Metro City Councilman. “Because they feel they have no future.”

“In our own city, we have kids that see the rest of the world on TV, they see it across the street. How do I get from where I am to graduate high school, to graduate college, to get a job?” said Metro Police Chief Steve Anderson. “The reduction in federal funding for police prevention programs, for police outreach programs, is also going to have an effect.”

Black children in Nashville grow up in “a world that includes drugs, prostitution and violence on a daily basis.” We are told that “public housing developments like J.C. Napier, Sam Levy and James Cayce” are where “much of this violence has occurred.”

Police Chief Anderson told The Tennessean, “The public in general doesn’t realize this is another world you’re driving by each day. There is another world that you don’t recognize that needs your support, that needs your attention. They really don’t understand what’s going on in the inner city.”

Councilman Maynard believes that Nashville needs an “all out effort” along the lines of the response to the Cumberland River flood to stop the epidemic of black-on-black homicide.

He explains, “Black-on-black crime is not a black problem. It’s a Nashville problem because tourists will not come here, businesses will not come here. We will strangle economic growth if we do not come to a solution to this.”

The blacks of Nashville are fouling their own nest and it is Whitey’s responsibility to clean up the mess. There has been a 31 percent increase in the homicide rate since black community leaders declared a “cease fire” last year.

Why are these people so utterly helpless?

The Dark Side of Black Run America

Nashville’s predicament with black-on-black crime is just one of the many unintended consequences of Black Run America that respectable liberals and conservatives are afraid to talk about.

A few observations:

(1) Much of the gang warfare in Nashville goes on in the public housing projects that were built as part of the War on Poverty for the explicit purpose of abolishing underclass social pathologies through government social engineering.

These programs were based on the premise that the individual is a product of his environment. When the federal government created a new environment for blacks, they moved into their new neighborhoods and quickly destroyed them.

(2) There is nothing stopping blacks from graduating from high school or college. Their skin color actually works to their advantage when trying to find a job in the private sector or get into a public university.

Intelligent blacks can and do graduate from high school and move on to lucrative jobs in the diversity obsessed private sector.

Most blacks are unable to compete with Whites in integrated classrooms because they are objectively less intelligent than their White peers.

The problem was never the Jim Crow schools. When the federal government gave blacks access to the White schools, they brought the racial gap with them into their new environment.

(3) Most of these black murderers come from “broken families.” Fatherlessness has a causal relationship to violent crime. An incredible 59 percent of black women now have children by two different fathers.

The black male is unable to compete with the federal government as a provider for black women. Most of these households are beneficiaries of various types of federal anti-poverty programs. White liberals have fostered and encouraged this type of extreme dependency.

Whether it is housing projects, welfare, or integrated public schools, White liberal attempts to uplift blacks through government intervention programs have a long track record of failure. And those are just the most obvious examples.

(4) Integration didn’t benefit all blacks in the same way.

The dirty little secret of integration is that it allowed the so-called “talented tenth” to abandon the black underclass and move up into the White world.

Under Jim Crow, the “talented tenth” was excluded from the White world on the basis of race. They were forced to live among their co-ethnics and cater to them and respond to all their various social problems.

Who benefits from meritocracy, affirmative action, and relentlessly promoting diversity? The “talented tenth” which is given the means to escape the black world.

They leave the old neighborhood behind which has the effect of robbing it of its natural leadership and compounding its various social problems.

(5) Integration has cowed Whites into submission.

Whites are unable to defend their own property and institutions under the present system of forced integration. They adapt by fleeing areas which they are unable to control.

The Whites take the jobs and the tax base with them. The “talented tenth” follows the White wagon train to each new Whitopia. An underground economy moves into the geographic vacuum where the black underclass has been left behind.

It is “another world” out there precisely because it is a black underclass world. Violent crime spirals out of control because integration has forced Whites to abandon those areas. It has also given upwardly mobile blacks their ticket out of the hood.

(6) The Cultural Revolution has destroyed White confidence in their own traditional culture.

Whites used to take great pride in forcing Christianity and middle class values onto blacks. Now that the pressure to assimilate into White American norms is gone, blacks are losing their Christian veneer and reverting back to their base racial way of doing things.

Christianity worked for blacks. It restrained a population that is naturally less intelligent and less conscientious than Whites. It curtailed their natural polygamy and licentiousness.

(7) The overarching myth of Black Run America is that every American is an individual who is born as a blank slate with the same opportunity to succeed in our capitalist economy. Environmental obstacles like racism and poverty alone stop blacks from climbing the social ladder into the American middle class.

This dangerous myth that everyone is equal and has the same chance has resulted in the abandonment of the black underclass in Nashville. It doesn’t acknowledge the ugly social reality that human beings are not born as interchangeable parts.

The black underclass is shuttled into public schools and the private sector where they don’t have the intelligence to compete with their racial brethren for scholarships and job opportunities. They drop out and fall into a life of drug abuse and violent crime which has been exacerbated by black flight into the White suburbs.

Comparatively, Jim Crow America was a more humane place to live for the black underclass for three major reasons:

– A society based on Christian values and racial inequality will accept that some blacks are unable to succeed for biological reasons and will respond by tailoring its culture, social institutions, and economy around dealing with that unpleasant fact.

– A society based on race will blunt class divisions. As I explained above, the “talented tenth” was forced by Jim Crow segregation to live among their weaker brethren and steward their communities, which was a far more successful social reform than any progressive anti-poverty program.

– Under Jim Crow, Whites were self confident and explicitly in control of their own society. They didn’t have to flee Southern cities like Birmingham to the surrounding suburbs. The “talented tenth” had no incentive to leave either.

While there was some white-on-black violence under Jim Crow, there was far less violence overall because of these instructive lessons in racial hierarchy, blacks were safer in what is now called the “inner cities,” and there weren’t nearly as many blacks in prison as there are today.

The ugly truth that blacks are unwilling to confront is that the Klan was nowhere near as much of a menace to blacks in Jim Crow America as blacks are likely to be murdered, raped, robbed, or assaulted by feral black criminals in Black Run America.

White/Black

Every negative thing that has been said about Black Run America above is equally true of the White community. It is only a difference of degree.

The same cultural trends that have been unleashed in the black inner city are destroying White America at a slower rate. The parallel of the black underclass experience with cocaine in the inner city ghettos is the White experience with meth, alcohol, and prescription drug abuse in trailer parks.

The present meritocratic system allows the “talented third” of White America to abandon the cities, small towns, and rural communities of the American South for high paying jobs and exclusive suburbs in other parts of the country.

22 percent of White women now have children by multiple fathers. Christianity is collapsing. The White nuclear family is dissolving along with it. The old middle class values are under constant assault from the counterculture and the redistributive state.

The myth of Black Run America that everyone has the same chance in life (i.e., you just need to be reeducated to be a nuclear physicist) and that White racial consciousness is synonymous with evil has hurt the White underclass more than anyone else. Nowhere in Black Run America is a there a greater sense of hopelessness.

The best and the brightest of the small towns now graduate from college and move off to the big cities. The White underclass has been completely abandoned by its natural leadership. No one even gives lip service to caring about the “white trash” anymore.

A traditional organic society like Jim Crow America which was based on Christian values and racial inequality elevated the White underclass. It blunted class divisions among Whites and worked to their economic advantage. Racial identity gave other Whites a stake in their lives.

Solutions

The solutions being proposed by the political class of Nashville reflect the fact that the truth about human inequality was the first casualty of Black Run America.

Just listen to these great ideas: new housing projects, spending more money, community centers, “ways of giving our young people hope,” distractions like sports and music, “real mentors,” “volunteers to work with poor kids,” rebuilding the black family, etc.

The “young people” here don’t have any hope because they have been abandoned by their co-ethnics. These ghettos are what happen when blacks are sorted by intelligence and economic segregation is allowed to create an impermeable geographic barrier to the outside world.

In so many words, this is what happens when you replace a race based society with a class based one.

White identity politics is a form of heresy, and heresy has grave consequences. Advocating White nationalism or merely defending White interests often results in a loss of social standing. Moral cowards, amoral sycophants, and racial traitors are rewarded while heroes and righteous guardians are demonized. Pretending that Whites are social constructs or have no legitimate interests to defend is accepted, even celebrated, in a society infested with anti-White multiculturalism. White racialists realize that the cornucopia of cultures is designed to exclude any White culture, and the future rainbow of races is actually a muddled mess of miscegenation. It is therefore a tremendous challenge to remain in steadfast support of the White extended genotype. The anti-White opposition is well-funded, well-organized, malicious, and persistent.

White advocacy is beset on all sides. Campaigning against White genocide attracts derision and scorn from anti-Whites. Lamenting the decline of the White population into minority status is attacked as intolerance. Merely calling attention to, let alone denouncing, the maliciously disproportionate amounts of violent interracial crime committed against White people is paradoxically described as hate. Protecting the continuity of family lineage by expecting exclusively White marriages and White procreation is seen as backwards, provincial, or outdated. Suggesting that many trends or ideas that harm White interests have been disproportionately created, organized, disseminated, or financed by Jewish interests can lead to accusations of insanity or mental instability.

This derision, scorn, and accusations of intolerance, hate, and insanity are reactions that require White nationalists to have a thick skin in order to maintain their viewpoints. It is hard to be a heretic. But the requisite resilience to carry forward is about more than insensitivity to insults or threats. It is inspired by the love of truth. White racialists know that race is real and that it has important consequences for civilization and ethnic genetic interests. White nationalists realize they are being systematically dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from their homelands. Defenders of White identity understand that there is nothing hateful or unhealthy about wanting to continue their heritage by having White babies in White societies.

The steely resolution that guides a White nationalist is a personality trait or perhaps a spiritual constitution that values eternal truth more than ephemeral social standing. A patriotic White man understands that truth can be directly opposed to popular opinion, and that such a situation is not without historical precedent. An exemplary White man is willing to act in accordance with that wisdom. A heroic White man can marshal these convictions into effective action and change the dynamics of society. The White race is in desperate need of more heroes.

White people are known to be more individualistic than other races. In a White-dominant society, free from ethnic or racial competition from non-White groups, this individualism helped propel White people beyond the established limits of science, technology, philosophy, and religion. The individualist refusal to conform to the “popular consensus”—which always opposes scientific breakthroughs or heretical ideas—is precisely why so many White historical figures persist within the collective memory as titans of Western civilization. Nobody remembers a conformist, but everybody remembers a successful catalyst of righteous revolution. The reward for success in such a struggle is immortal fame. How could it be any other way?

Why would anyone remember Galileo Galilee if he were not individualistic and self-assured enough to confront the ruling dogma of a geocentric universe? Whose bookshelf would carry the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn if he decided to bow his head to Soviet oppression because speaking out was not worth going to the gulag? Who could call themselves Protestant if Martin Luther lacked the courage and conviction to stand before the Catholic Church and criticize it without fear? All of these White men had radical ideas that stood directly against the ruling orthodoxies of their societies. These men would be scattered to the winds of time had they not found everlasting fame by tenaciously promoting important ideas despite intense societal opposition. These were all rebels with a cause, and that cause was truth. Truth is heresy before it is accepted as truth, so all of these men were once called heretics.

White nationalists face similar pressures because being pro-White is heresy in modern America. Professors will express hostility to ideas about White interests, and this may translate to lowered grades or a denial of tenure in the academic world. Employers often terminate workers who openly defend the civil rights of Whites in their private lives. Former friends may cut ties when they sense the imminent risks to social standing that follow from associating with a racially-conscious White person. Sometimes even immediate family members will choose material security and peer-group acceptance rather than support a relative who is protecting the entire extended family. Heresy has social consequences, as Galileo, Solzhenitsyn, and Luther knew all too well.

“Racist!” is the modern equivalent of “heretic!” Words like ‘intolerance’ and ‘hate’ are used as shibboleths to shout down dissension and preclude debate. The words have changed, but the methods of social ostracism remain the same. Cry “heretic!” or its equivalent, and let the crowd take care of the rest.

History is replete with examples of entrenched orthodoxy stultifying new ways of thinking in an oppressive manner. In more primitive times, the mystical shamans or oracles consulted with the gods in order to divine wisdom for tribal consumption. To deny the oracle’s wisdom, or to suggest the shaman was merely influenced by psychotropic drugs, was grounds for ostracism from the tribe. Only a heretic would oppose the dominant spiritual class because it was social suicide.

Skip forward thousands of years. Oracles and shamans became priests. The mystical priests consulted with God and the Bible in order to divine wisdom for public consumption. To deny the priests’ monopoly on the word of God, or to suggest they were power-hungry sycophants, was grounds for excommunication from the Church and society—a lesson Martin Luther learned the hard way. The charge of heresy was used to preclude reasonable debate, just as racism or anti-Semite is used today.

The modern ruling orthodoxy follows political correctness—the anti-White bastard child of Cultural Marxism. Nietzsche declared the death of God, but nature abhors a vacuum. In His place, the elite cabals in academia, finance, media, and politics erected a new totem pole to worship and venerate. Whether it is called liberalism, egalitarianism, Cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, or diversity, the dynamics of enforcing this untenable, genocidal, and anti-White worldview remain the same: ridicule, isolation, defamation, prosecution, ostracism, or humiliation— but never open debate. Heresy is not to be debated.

While most of humanity has evolved beyond burning heretics at the stake or performing ritual human sacrifice, the same procedural thought control remains, consistently corrupting and subverting impressionable White minds. Anyone who denies the existence of ritual sacrifice is not looking closely enough. If an influential figure violates the dogma of multiculturalism, the gatekeepers will quickly close ranks. Instead of ominous tribal drumbeats, the background music will be cries of “racist!” or “hater!” or “anti-Semite!” as the eager executioners prepare the sacrificial altar. Instead of carving out the heretic’s heart, the mainstream media and its supporters will try to ruin the heretic’s reputation as he is defamed as an intolerant, hateful, and bigoted person.

Public persecution of heretics persists in the modern age. Remember that the public sacrifice is also a warning. It is a powerful message to the rest of the group: heresy has serious consequences.

Unfortunately, the heretical path of White nationalism, White identity, and White interests is a narrow one. The trailblazers of the movement must deal with the prickly thorns, rough terrain, and back-breaking labor needed to clear the brush so others may be enticed to follow. At this stage, it is inevitable that some people will sever social connections with a pro-White person once the nationalist motivations are made clear. It seems strange that these same people would gladly continue the friendship, or express glowing admiration, if the cause at issue concerned the rights of any other racial group except for White people. This promiscuous out-group altruism is at the height of absurdity when an ostensibly White person rejects the company of another White person who advances both of their shared interests. But this is the reality of anti-White multiculturalism. The perverted ideas that have poisoned American discourse are designed to marginalize, ostracize, and demonize any remaining White person who dares to stand against the rolling tide of White dispossession.

What keeps a White nationalist from throwing in the towel? Why trudge on, when the road ahead is uphill and laden with obstacles at every turn? Beyond an undying love for one’s people, it is the same determination that drove Henry Ford to publicize Jewish subversion in the Dearborn Independent despite the imminent threat it posed to his financial interests. It is the same zeal for truth and liberty that compelled Thomas Jefferson to pen the Declaration of Independence.

The same love for truth burns in the heart of every White nationalist, and no amount of social pressure, slander, or temporary isolation is enough to extinguish the flame. The fuel source is the righteous indignation that arises when one man recognizes a cosmic injustice and is willing to fight through Hell to rectify it. The temptation of capitulation is great, the course of retreat is enticing, and the punishment for having the gall to continue is severe, but the footprints of so many great men of the past are enough to inspire forward progress. Spiritual man values virtue infinitely more so than material comfort or fleeting adoration from those not worthy to provide it. Patrick Henry confirmed his status as a spiritual man when he thundered his revolutionary call-to-arms to the Virginia House of Burgesses: “give me Liberty or give me Death!”

The movement for White identity and White interests needs more spiritual men. This is not intended to be a criticism of capitalism, profits, or material success. White nationalism needs donors, financiers, talented businessmen, and creative capitalists. But it is an inescapable conclusion that defending White people is not a get-rich-quick scheme, and it is not guaranteed to win more friends than enemies in the short term. Arthur Schopenhauer said “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as being self-evident.” White identity politics is somewhere between ridicule and violent opposition. The goal is to move towards Schopenhauer’s third stage. It will not be easy.

White nationalism is not for the weak, the timid, the gullible, or the emotionally dependent—instead, these attributes describe the demoralized and deracinated White person. The strong have always helped the weak; right now, the White race is in a position of weakness. Those who have not fallen under the spell of White guilt must reawaken their White brothers and sisters. Those who have looked beyond the horizon and gazed upon the possibility of White extinction must warn the unenlightened about the reality of White genocide. Those who value truth and who retain a healthy sense of White pride and White identity must shoulder the burden for the rest of the group who have been robbed of their heritage.

Leadership, integrity, persuasive ability, organizational skills, and inspirational ideas are sorely needed in the White nationalist movement. The genetic capacity to express these skills and traits has not been lost—yet. The potential remains within the White genotype, whether expressed or dormant, waiting to be expressed in the next familial iteration. Preserve that potential as an irreplaceable treasure. Remember that the spirit of conquest, scientific discovery, opposition to tyranny, bravery in the face of adversity, and most importantly, unshakeable determination in the pursuit of truth are all fundamental aspects of White genetic and historical heritage. The same individualism that has been cruelly exploited to disenfranchise Whites in the midst of hostile minorities can be redirected to fight against the injustice of White dispossession.

The inherently White characteristic of Western individualism can be rescued from its current subversion and redirected towards the improvement of White society. There was a time, not so long ago, when protecting the White race, the White nation, the White village, or the White family was a heroic and virtuous act to be celebrated, rather than a reason to be called a “racist.” This spirit of brotherhood, kin, and race has not been completely extinguished from the White population.

The task ahead is to awaken the yearning for truth, focused determination, sense of justice, ethnic identity, and iron will that resides within the White race. Part of the struggle is to destroy taboos and transform heresy to accepted truth. When that day comes, the titans will stand up, yawn, and throw off the shackles of anti-White multiculturalism with an effortless shrug of the shoulders. Charges of heresy will be ignored and fade away. Unencumbered and emancipated, the White race will continue its eternal march throughout history, breaking philosophical barriers, reaching higher plateaus of health and virility, discovering profound scientific truths, inventing exciting new technologies, and achieving greater zeniths of civilization. Who will lead the charge?

One of my favorite hobbies for several years now has been keeping track of former “civil rights” celebrities after their fifteen minutes of undeserved media fame are over. It is an excellent way to demonstrate how political correctness has corrupted American journalism.

Everyone in America has at least a passing familiarity with these victims of White “racism,” but few are familiar with their trials since then, which the mainstream media has refused to give the same amount of inordinate attention.

Where are these martyrs for “social justice” now?

Rodney King

Rodney King is my personal favorite: in the years since the Los Angeles riots, which led to the death of 55 people, King has been arrested for soliciting and having sex with a transvestite prostitute in Hollywood, beating his wife, multiple DUIs, vandalism, beating his own child, and indecent exposure in a public park while being high on PCP.

In 2003, King drove his car into a house after weaving through traffic and traveling at a speed over 100 mph. Two years later, he was arrested after threatening to kill his daughter and former girlfriend.

Don Lemon recently glamorized Rodney King in a CNN Presents special report called “Race and Rage: The Beating of Rodney King” to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the alleged “racist beating” of this scumbag.

King won a cool $3.8 million dollar settlement in his civil suit. He used the money to start a hip hop record label.

A month ago, Rodney King was stopped by the LAPD for erratic driving and was issued a citation for driving with an expired license. Twenty years later, Rodney King is still a threat to public safety.

Jena 6

The Jena 6 were six black students in Jena, Louisiana who in an unprovoked assault beat a White student named Justin Barker nearly to death in 2006. Al Sharpton marched on Jena with 15,000 to 20,000 supporters to protest the clear injustice that was done to Barker’s black attackers.

The Jena 6 movement was hailed in the mainstream media at the time as “the first struggle of the 21st century Civil Rights Movement.”

In 2007, Jesse Ray Beard was accused, convicted and sentenced for simple battery, simple criminal damage to property less than $500 and simple assault.

In 2008, Bryant Purvis was arrested for assaulting a fellow high school student in Texas.

Corwin Jones was arrested for trespassing and simple battery following an incident in which he struck a man from behind.

Also in 2008, Mychal Bell spat in the face of his female attorney and pushed her to the ground. He was arrested later that year for shoplifting, resisting arrest, and simple assault after trying to steal $700 worth of clothes from a Dillard’s department store.

In 2010, Bell was arrested and charged with battery after punching someone who was “running his mouth” at a Jena barber shop.

Catrina Wallace, the sister of Robert Bailey, founder of “Organizing in the Trenches,” and central organizer of the Jena 6 protests, was arrested in “Operation Third Option” in 2009 and was recently convicted on three counts of distribution of a controlled substance. She faces decades in prison.

Marcus Jones, father of Mychal Bell, is calling for a Justice Department investigation into the arrest and conviction of Ms. Wallace.

Duke Lacrosse Stripper

In 2006, a black stripper named Crystal Magnum falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players, all of whom were White, of raping her at a party. Like the Jena 6, the Duke lacrosse scandal ignited a media firestorm about White racism and brought out all the usual suspects.

Hysteria swept Duke University.

The accused players were suspended, the team’s coach was fired, and the entire lacrosse season was cancelled. The case later fell apart after it became obvious that Magnum had fabricated her story.

This morning Crystal Magnum was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon after attempting to kill her boyfriend with a kitchen knife. The officers who arrived on the scene found that Magnum had succeeded in stabbing him in the torso.

In December, jurors found Magnum guilty of three counts of contributing to the abuse and neglect of minors (her own children who were taken away by social services), resisting arrest, and $500 worth of property damage. She had set fire to the clothes of her then boyfriend in a bathtub.

Game

I suggest we play a game: share the facts above on various websites and see how long it takes to get banned, down voted, or accused of “racism.”

I’m about to try this out myself. We can compare scores in the comments.